American conservative media organization, PragerU, is facing an uphill battle against an increasing trend towards censorship of conservative content.

Founded by Dennis Prager in 2009, and currently run by CEO, Marissa Streit, PragerU provides commentary and information on a wide range of subjects, from prominent thinkers and doers. PragerU also considers themselves to be a platform for the preservation of Judeo-Christian values, and “the concepts of freedom of speech, a free press, free markets and a strong military to protect and project those values.” (PragerU ‘What we Do’)

In an official Facebook post from January 26th, 2019, PragerU admins wrote:

“PragerU has officially filed a new lawsuit against Google and YouTube in the state of California [over unjustifiable censorship].

Adding that, streaming service, Spotify:

“has completely banned PragerU from advertising its content. This is clearly in line with the censorship we’ve experienced on Youtube, Google, and Twitter.” (PragerU Facebook)

According to a PragerU Twitter post, Spotify’s reason for blacklisting the organization, was because their content didn’t ‘comply’ with Spotify’s editorial policies. Consequently, Spotify “stopped all existing ads, and stated that they will not be approving any new ones.” (PragerU Twitter) Not only this, but as of the January 26th, PragerU, “still hadn’t received any explanation from Spotify as to which specific policy we didn’t comply with.” (PragerU Facebook)

If you’re up to date with the developing concerns over big tech companies threatening to censor conservative content, and big tech companies actually censoring conservative content, you’ll know that an ambiguous reason like, “mistakenly removed”, in all probability means, “removed by an employee, who took personal offence to the content, acted unanimously, making a subjective (highly unprofessional) decision to delete it.”

Although, in this case, Facebook deserves kudos for acknowledging the error and fixing it; the increase in uncalled for restrictions on content that challenges the overarching ideological predisposition of the big tech companies, should be of deep concern to everyone. It is a direct threat to the right to freedom of information, freedom of speech, and the right to come to conclusions independent of those who may seek to make us co-dependent on them.

For now, PragerU, and organizations like Caldron Pool are free to publish content in line with the values and faith that made, and still makes, the West a destination for many.

For now, PragerU stands as a city on a hill, at the forefront of a conflict that is unnecessary, unethical and uncalled-for. Even though doors are being shut on PragerU, as long as PragerU stands by its mandate, as outlined in their mission statement, they will continue to be that city, providing an open door for discussion, which runs against the stream.

To be fair, I don’t think private institutions should be forced to allow any ads of their choosing. True, they may be biased against Christians and conservatives, but as a business, they should be allowed to be biased, just as Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A are allowed to close on Sundays.

I agree. In PragerU’s case it’s an issue of companies practicing a double standard. Plus, an online social media platform, which needs freedom of speech in order to function properly, is a whole lot different to a business in the hospitality and retail industry.

It’s quite simple. Like most businesses, they are non-partisan. Imho a platform like social media should aim to be a neutral mediator of content, not an enforcer of ideology. Disclaimers exist when it comes to advertising, such as, “we don’t endorser this, but believe in freedom of speech.” Otherwise the platform easily becomes a propaganda arm of opportunistic politicians etc.; who can manipulate that platform because their sympathetic to that politicians ideology. They are likely to fund and foster, a culture of silence, bias and fear based control via emotional manipulation. It’s good business practice to stay politically non-partisan. Spotify provides a music streaming service, it’s not a social justice platform, or an arm of a political party. It’s a business that sells music. In banning someone from advertising without clearly explaining why, Spotify steps outside its mandate; its raison d’etre.